text:
Photo © Gerald A. Mulligan |
Gucker, Corey L. 2009. Berberis vulgaris.
In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online].
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer).
Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/
common barberry
European barberry
The scientific name of common barberry is Berberis vulgaris
L. (Berberidaceae) [27,42].
Hybrid: Berberis × ottawaensis (Schneid.), a cross between common barberry and Japanese barberry (B. thunbergerii),
occurs in Europe and North America [24,60,67].
Information on state-level noxious weed status of plants in the United States is available at
Plants Database.
Common barberry is a nonnative plant in North America. Its native range is Asia's middle
and western mountains, and it is widely introduced throughout Europe [44,77].
Common barberry was brought to North America in the 1600s by early New England settlers
(Josselyn 1672 cited in [55]),[44], and soon after its introduction, common barrberry
escaped from cultivation. Soon after its introduction and escape, common barberry was
linked with failing wheat crops [27]. Programs to eliminate and restrict
planting of
common barberry in North America began in the 18th century, but large-scale cooperative
eradication did not occur until the early 1900s. Widespread eradication led to a dramatic
decline in common barberry abundance, and common barberry's distribution today is largely
the result of successes and failures in eradication (Roelfs 1982 cited in [27]).
Some suggest that common barberry has been "virtually exterminated in the United States" [77],
but populations persist in the eastern Great Plains, Great Lakes states, northeastern United States,
and southeastern Canada. Populations also remain in Idaho, Montana, British Columbia, and Colorado [27].
Large common barberry populations and infestations occur primarily in Ontario and Quebec in Canada [77]
and are scattered through the northeastern United States [2,60,75].
Populations are especially persistent along the Atlantic Coast [62].
Flora of North America
provides a distributional map of common barberry.
Introduction and spread in North America: European settlers likely brought common barberry to New England because of its ornamental, food, and medicinal uses [44,57]. Common barberry was growing in early New England settlements by 1671 (Josselyn 1672 cited in [55]). In the 18th and 19th centuries, common barberry was commonly planted as a hedge and as a source of jam and yellow dye. Plants frequently escaped cultivation and established in natural areas in eastern North America (Roelfs 1982 cited in [27]). Common barberry was considered a weed in Massachusetts by 1754 [77]. Below is a sporadic timeline that provides information about the spread of common barberry in North America:
Eradication efforts and effects on local distributions: Soon after the introduction and escape of common barberry in New England, colonists determined it was responsible for dramatic reductions in wheat crop yields [28]. Common barberry is an alternate host for cereal stem rust (Puccinia graminis). As a host, common barberry provides an inoculum source and a sexual reproduction site for stem rust (Leonard 2001 cited in [71]). When common barberry grows near cereal crops (<330 feet (100 m) away) (Roelfs 1985 cited in [71]), it can support the development of new genotypes able to adapt and attack rust-resistant crops (Leonard 2001 cited in [71]). Earlier reports suggested that common barberry in urban areas was also able to spread stem rust to other grasses that eventually passed it on to wheat crops [80], suggesting there was no safe distance between common barberry and cereal crops. During epidemic stem rust outbreaks, wheat yield losses up to 70% were reported [71]. In 1916, stem rust was considered the principal reason for a 200 million bushel reduction in wheat yields for Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Montana [80].
In the 18th century, the New England colonists of Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island wrote laws restricting the planting and spread of common barberry. Over time many other states developed laws against the sale, transport, and planting of new barberry (Berberis spp.) plants and for the removal of established plants. It was not until 1918, after "devastating" wheat losses to stem rust, that federal laws and funding were devoted to eradication. Eradication projects and funding between 1918 and 1942 led to the destruction of 309,645,502 landscape, escaped, and nursery plants from the 964,000 mile² (2,497,000 km²) eradication area that included nearly all of the North American spring-wheat growing areas [28]. Between 1935 and 1950, there were 150,087,197 common barberry or American barberry (B. canadensis) shrubs destroyed in West Virginia [84]. By 1956, nearly 500 million barberry shrubs were killed on 149,318 properties in 19 states [12]. Widespread barberry eradication was "gradually phased out" by 1980 [71]. It is important to note that scattered common barberry populations persist in several areas of North America, and the potential for long-distance seed dispersal by birds makes monitoring and early detection of common barberry important to long-term control.
General effects of eradication efforts on common barberry distribution in North America are summarized below:
Although common barberry populations were often reduced or eliminated by eradication efforts, some post-eradication surveys indicate substantial spread from untreated or surviving plants. In Minnesota,
researchers surveyed 72 sites treated by federal eradication teams. Surveyed sites had a "high
potential" for reemergence, once supported large common barberry populations, and/or occurred in
major grain production areas. Of the 72 sites, 32 had common barberry populations supporting 1 to 300
individuals [71]. In eastern Ontario and western Quebec, a 20-year eradication program (initiated in
1964) did not eliminate all common barberry. In the first 5 years of the program, population decreases
of 90% or more were common. Eradication was successful at only a few sites where shrubs were initially
rare and/or herbicide treatments were repeated for several successive years. Since 1980, there have been
few treatments, and common barberry populations have increased "considerably" [18].
Common barberry habitats in the United States are described before, during, and after eradication
efforts; however, timing of habitat occupation is generally unimportant to possible future establishment
and spread. Plant communities invaded by common barberry include grasslands, savannas, thickets, and
dense woodlands or forests. These habitats are described for the Great Lakes area and northeastern United
States where common barberry is persistent. Additional information on the importance of birds in common
barberry's distribution is presented in Seed dispersal.
In the north-central United States, common barberry often invades prairies and savannas [21]. When eradication sites were revisited in Minnesota, most common barberry populations occurred in sparsely to densely wooded areas [71]. In Wisconsin, common barberry was typical in disturbed hardwood stands [20]. In southern Michigan, it was reported in upland oak (Quercus spp.) savannas [16]. In Pennsylvania, populations occurred in stream bank thickets, along roadsides, in open pastures, and on "half-wooded hillsides" [43]. Although most common in open-canopy forests in New England, common barberry is also reported in abandoned fields, coastal grasslands, early-seral forests, forest edges, floodplain forests, disturbed sites, pastures, roadsides, and shrubby wetlands [62]. In Connecticut's sand plains, common barberry occurred in the dense understory of black oak (Q. velutina) woodlands [70]. It was described within black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) clones in inland pitch pine-scrub oak (Pinus rigida-Q. ilicifolia) barrens of the Albany Pine Bush Preserve in New York [25]. In Maine, common barberry occurred in red spruce-balsam fir (Picea rubens-Abies balsamea) forests [23].
Photo © Leslie J. Mehrhoff, University of Conneticut, Bugwood.org |
Botanical description: This description covers characteristics that may be relevant to fire ecology and is not meant for identification. Keys for identification are available (e.g., [27,29,79,84]).
Aboveground description: Common barberry is a deciduous shrub that may reach 10 feet (3 m) tall [27,79]. Shrubs often have 20 to 30 erect, widely spreading stems that droop at the ends, producing an arching form [17,24,35,86]. Simple or 3-pronged thorns occur at stem nodes [27,76]. Thorns measure 1 to 2 cm long [35]. Older stems have gray shredding bark, and individual stems may live up to 30 years [86].
Common barberry produces simple, alternate leaves that are often clustered on the stem [17,77]. Lance-shaped or egg-shaped leaves measure 0.4 to 2.2 inches (1-5.5 cm) long and are widest at or just above middle. Leaf margins are finely serrate with 8 to 30 spiny teeth [27,49,65,76,79]. Common barberry flowers occur in a drooping 0.8- to 2.4-inch (2-6 cm) long raceme. Inflorescences are typically comprised of 10 to 20 flowers [27,79]. Individual flowers are up to 8 mm across, with 6 petals and 6 stamens [81,84]. Stamens are contact-sensitive and "spring violently" against the stigma when touched [2]. Common barberry fruits are egg-shaped, 1- to 3-seeded berries that measure up to 0.5 inch (12 mm) long [24,35,77]. In the Tullgarn area of Sweden, fruits averaged 4.1 mm in diameter, 0.09 g when fresh, and produced an average of 1.3 seeds/fruit [26]. On Spain's Iberian Peninsula, common barberry averaged 1.6 seeds/fruit [36,37]. Common barberry seeds are about 6 mm long [77].
Photo © 2004 Dr. Amadej Trnkoczy | Photo © 2005 Dr. Amadej Trnkoczy |
Belowground description: Common barberry root and rhizome growth is often extensive. Surrounding the common barberry root crown is a "thick mass of fibrous roots". Large lateral roots occur several inches to more than a foot under ground. Lateral roots may be 1 to 2 inches (2.5-5 cm) in diameter near the root crown and extend 10 to 15 feet (3-4.6 m) from the root crown [86]. Common barberry root growth varies with site conditions. Shrubs in sandy, loose-textured soils produced long lateral roots. Shrubs growing on gentle slopes with deep loam soils did not produce long tap roots (review by [72]). The review did not indicate whether or not long common barberry tap roots were rare in all habitats.
Rhizomes produced from the root crown typically grow a few inches below ground but may penetrate 2 to 3 feet (0.6-1 m). Rhizomes do not generally grow roots until aerial shoots emerge, at which time a mass of fibrous roots is produced at the point of emergence. Rhizome growth contributes to increasing shrub size, and severing rhizomes results in reproduction (see Vegetative Regeneration) [86].
Raunkiaer [74] life form:
In North America and western Europe, common barberry flowers are common in May or June and fruits
are generally ripe by August or September [27,64,69,77,79,84].
Seeds may mature by October [17]. In the fall, common barberry leaves turn a red, orange, or
purple color [17,49]. Berries are persistent and remain on stems through winter
Common barberry reproduces by seed and from rhizomes that are detached from the parent plant.
Rhizome spread and sprouting are important to common barberry growth and persistence
(see Vegetative regeneration).
Pollination and breeding system: Common barberry flowers are perfect [59] and primarily insect pollinated [79]. Nectaries occur at the base of flower petals, and bees, wasps, ants, flies, and beetles are common pollinators (review by [72]). Although cross pollination by insects is most common, in New Brunswick, New Jersey, 3 of 30 inflorescences produced fruits when protected from insects [32].
Seed production: Abundant fruit and seed crops are produced by common barberry nearly every year, but predation is common. Common barberry typically begins producing fruit at 4 to 7 years old, but fruit production has been observed on 1-year-old shrubs (Shepherd 1944 cited in [72]). A review reports that common barberry produces "good" fruit crops nearly every year [64]. On Spain's Iberian Peninsula, common barberry produced an estimated 1,000 to 2,500 fruits/plant [36,37]. During field studies conducted in southeastern Spain, 75.5% of common barberry flowers produced fruit, 70.6% of fruits ripened, and the average number of seeds/fruit was 1.66. Plants averaged 1,605 fruits, but production ranged from 100 to 5,000 fruits/plant [69].
Predation: Insects, birds, and small mammals can reduce common barberry seed production through predation. In southeastern Spain, tephritid fruit fly larvae affected an average of 41.6% of common barberry fruits. Predation ranged from 14.6% to 98.7% and was greatest on early-fruiting plants. Early-fruiting plants typically produced fewer seeds/fruit than late-fruiting plants. The researcher cautioned that predation was monitored for only 1 year and can vary dramatically between years and locations [69]. In Sierra Nevada National Park, southeastern Spain, 30.1% of common barberry seeds presented to predators were taken. Primary seed predators in the area were rodents. When compared with other seeds, common barberry was only moderately preferred [61]. When 1,875 dried common barberry fruits were fed to captive ring-necked pheasants, just 10 seeds were recovered intact. Ring-necked pheasants have powerful gizzards [48], but many smaller bird species pass whole common barberry seeds and are important to Seed dispersal. For more on animal use of common barberry, see Importance to Wildlife and Livestock.
Seed dispersal: Birds [36,37,70,79] and cattle are the most commonly discussed common barberry seed dispersers. However, small mammals such as field mice and other small rodents may also disperse seeds by caching common barberry fruits [62,63]. Seed dispersal in water is also likely, given the importance of river corridors in common barberry's distribution [52,67]. Seed movement by wind and in mud caught in shoes, hooves, or equipment is also possible. The use of fruiting common barberry branches in decorations could also result in seed dispersal [86].
Common barberry fruits are persistent and typically available to birds or browsers through winter and spring [49,77]. Birds generally scatter seeds over an extensive area, while cattle typically deposit numerous seeds over a limited area [86].
Birds: Many bird species eat common barberry fruits, including ruffed grouse, northern bobwhites, ring-necked pheasants, mockingbirds (review by [92]), cedar waxwings (Kelly cited in [44]), robins, catbirds, and blackbirds [63]. According to Thompson and Robbins [86], birds generally feed on common barberry fruits in winter or early spring when other foods are unavailable. Of 15 bird species reported to feed on berries, small birds often passed seeds whole through the digestive tract, and others removed the fruits and left intact seeds at the feeding site (review by [72]). Whole seeds were recovered from robin and waxwing feces, but blackbirds typically cracked seeds [63]. In May and June in Ithaca, New York, the frequency of barberry seeds in robin feces was 81.5%. Many feces collections came from sidewalks bordering barberry hedges [33]. Studies in Minnesota revealed that common barberry seeds were still viable after traveling through bird digestive tracts. Seeds were carried several kilometers by local birds, but dispersal distances by migratory birds may be much greater (Flake 1945 cited in [71]). Some have reported that barberry seeds that have passed through the digestive tracts of birds have a "hastened" period of germination (Kerner and Oliver cited in [44]).
Studies in Europe also highlight the importance of birds in common barberry dispersal. In Kaiserstahl, southwestern Germany, birds were the primary dispersers of fleshy-fruited plant species including common barberry. Seeds were collected from bird droppings and regurgitations. Most seeds were dropped in successionally mature vegetation dominated by sweet cherry (Prunus avium) and durmast oak (Quercus petraea), about half as many were dropped in vegetation dominated by shrubs and vines, and the fewest were dropped in pioneer vegetation. Findings suggested that birds preferred the structural diversity of scrub and woodland vegetation over grasslands, likely because of an abundance of perches [47]. In southeastern Spain, common barberry fruits were consumed and dispersed by thrushes (Turdus spp.). An average of 51.5% of common barberry fruits was consumed by birds. The number of seeds dispersed by thrushes was positively correlated with crop size (P<0.05). Fruit removal was greatest from plants that produced the largest fruits [69]. Information on Seed production from this study is available.
Cattle: Several observations indicate that cattle disperse common barberry seed. Cattle have been observed browsing ripe common barberry fruits, and seedlings grew from manure [86]. Surveys conducted during eradication efforts suggested that cattle were spreading common barberry throughout grazing allotments [63]. Numerous common barberry seedlings were observed in dung patties in pastures in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania. In a single patty, there were 45 common barberry seedlings. Shady areas used heavily by resting cattle were covered with young common barberry shrubs. Beneath a single large tree, there were 145 common barberry shrubs [44].
Seed banking: Common barberry seeds may remain viable for 9 years or more in the soil. Studies conducted in North Dakota and Minnesota showed that seeds were viable after 9 and 7 years in the soil, respectively (Reddy 1929 cited in [72]), but no common barberry seedlings emerged from soil samples collected from an area where it occurred in Sweden [4]. Seeds stored in sealed containers at 34 to 37 °F (1-3 °C) were viable after 4 years (Heit 1967 cited in [64]). Seedlings emerged from common barberry seeds stored for up to 11 years. Storage conditions were not reported (review by [72]).
Germination: Common barberry seeds germinate best when shallowly buried in shaded areas where alternating temperatures exceed 50 °F (10 °C). In general, common barberry is described as germinating "readily" and producing "vigorous" seedlings [43]. Germination of seeds contained in intact fruits may be delayed compared to seeds without fleshy fruits. In field plots in southern Iowa, bare seeds generally germinated in the 1st year, while seeds in fruits germinated in the 2nd year. Germination occurred throughout the growing season [22].
Light: Germination of common barberry seeds is generally inhibited in full sun (Shepherd 1944 cited in [72]). Experiments designed to aid in the eradication of common barberry suggested that common barberry germination and seedling survival were best in shaded conditions (review by [71]).
Soils, burial: High levels of common barberry germination were reported in loose and recently cultivated soils (review by [72]). Another study reported that common barberry germination was best for seeds buried in 0.6 inch (1.5 cm) of soil. No seeds germinated from depths of 3 inches (8 cm) or more (Kempton 1922 cited in [72]).
Temperature: Field and laboratory experiments suggest that common barberry seed germination is best with alternating temperatures [66,72]. Generally germination fails at constant temperatures of 90 °F (32 °C) or higher, 41 °F (5 °C) or lower [22,66], and is promoted with cold stratification [1].
In the field, common barberry seeds germinated best when soil temperatures were 50 °F (10 °C) for 18 hours and 72 °F (22 °C) for 6 hours (review by [72]). In the laboratory, alternating temperatures produced higher germination rates than constant temperatures. Common barberry germination failed at constant temperatures of 41 °F (5 °C) or 90 °F (32 °C). Germination ranged from 72% to 88% at alternating moderate (41-50 °F (5-10 °C)) and high (59-72 °F (15-22 °C)) temperatures. Germination was 4% at alternating temperatures of 72 and 100 °F (22 and 38 °C) and was 12% at temperatures of 32 and 72 °F (0 and 22 °C) [66]. In a greenhouse study, seeds collected from plants growing in natural areas of Iowa germinated better than those collected from cultivated plants. Germination was best (62%) at temperatures of 68 to 86 °F (20-30 °C). Germination was low (14-19%) at constant temperatures of 50 °F (10 °C) and failed at 95 °F (35 °C) [22].
Seedling establishment and plant growth: Common barberry seedling establishment is often best in shady conditions. Disturbed sites may promote seedling establishment, while flooding, desiccation, frost heaving, and predation may reduce establishment. In general, common barberry seedlings are considered "vigorous" [43]. Observations made during eradication efforts suggested that alkaline soils beneath tree canopies provided for high rates of seedling growth and survival (review by [72]).
Experiments conducted during the initiation of eradication programs suggested that common barberry seedling survival was best in shaded conditions (review by [71]), although another study suggested that deep shade could inhibit establishment [45]. In Pennsylvania, seedlings were often found near mature plants. Although site characteristics were variable, germination and seedling establishment were successful in the area [44]. In studies in Germany, common barberry seedlings were not considered especially shade tolerant. In the upper Rhine Valley, seedling establishment and survival were monitored in a field where shrubs were beginning to shade out grassland species. In one year, 4 of 6 monitored common barberry seedlings survived. In the next year, 3 of 3 monitored seedlings survived. Common barberry seedling numbers were low due to scarce seed rain. Researchers did not speculate on the reasons for low seed production. Based on laboratory studies that measured dark respiration rates, light compensation points, and photosynthetic capacity values, researchers suggested that common barberry seedlings had high light demands and were not "particularly adapted to establish in a strongly-shaded environment" [45].
Disturbances may favor common barberry establishment, but seedlings are sensitive to flooding, desiccation, frost heaving, heavy litter, and predation. Although an eradication target for years in Wisconsin, common barberry remained present in "fair numbers". Curtis [20] suggested that common barberry persisted because disturbances associated with eradication were well suited to seedling establishment. In a greenhouse study, continuous and temporary flooding reduced common barberry seedling growth. Flooded seedlings produced much lower dry weights than unflooded seedlings, but seedlings did survive 12 weeks of flooding [22]. Field studies in southern Iowa revealed high mortality in seedlings less than 1 year old. Seedling death was often due to dessication, but winter frost-heaving also contributed. Seedling survival was also low on sites with heavy litter. When 1-year-old greenhouse grown seedlings were planted in field plots in Iowa, predation by rabbits was severe [22].
Vegetative regeneration: Rhizome growth and sprouting are important to common barberry size increases and vegetative regeneration. Vegetative spread through rhizome growth can produce large-sized shrubs and thick clumps of shoots. Clumps of stems up to 16 feet (5 m) in diameter are possible through rhizomatous growth. Stem sprouts are possible from small rhizome fragments, and severing the rhizome between a parent plant and a new sprout rarely damages either the parent or the sprout [86]. Vegetative spread by layering was reported for common barberry in New England [62]. Individual stems may live up to 30 years [86].
Throughout its range, common barberry is often described along roadsides and rivers, in old fields,
pastures, clearings, thickets, and woodlands [35,59,84,96].
When eradication sites in Minnesota were monitored for reemergence, common barberry was most
common in sparsely to densely wooded areas in the southeastern part of the state [71].
The Massachusetts Invasive Plant Advisory group reported that upland habitats were most commonly
invaded [60]. In Maine, common barberry is most often reported in successional old fields
and second-growth forests [53]. Common barberry often spreads through pastures and along
fencelines in Ontario [52,67]. Likely the establishment and spread of common barberry
populations is largely related to Seed dispersal.
Climate: Common barberry's distribution suggests a preference for humid continental climates. Common barberry is considered hardy to low winter temperatures of -40 °F (-40 °C) or lower [24,81]. Based on its US distribution, common barberry likely requires at least 25 inches (630 mm) of annual precipitation. In southeastern Spain's Sierra Nevada National Park, common barberry occurs in the dense shrub layer beneath a (Pinus sylvestris var. nevadensis) canopy. In this area, summers are hot and dry, winters are cold and snowy, and the 15-year average annual rainfall is 32 inches (818 mm). Most rain comes in the fall and spring [61].
Elevation: Common barberry occurs from sea level up to 5,900 feet (1,800 m) in North America [27].
Soils: Although common barberry occurs on soils derived from a variety of parent materials with a variety of textures, pH levels, and moistures, it is often widespread or particularly prolific on limestone soils or other alkaline and/or calcareous soils. A review reports that common barberry often grows in acidic sandy clay loams but also grows in neutral or alkaline clays and nutrient poor soils [2]. In Pennsylvania in 1921, common barberry occurred on soils from a variety of parent materials, including sandstone, shale, limestone, igneous rock, and glacial till [43]. When eradication sites in Minnesota were surveyed for common barberry in early 2000, shrubs were most common in alkaline sandy loams in the southeast part of the state [71]. In many areas, common barberry is especially common or restricted to limestone and/or calcareous soils. These areas include Iowa (review by [22]), western and southern Ontario [52,79], New England [62], and Sierra de Cazorla, southeastern Spain [69].
Common barberry typically grows best on dry to moist soils (review by [2]). In an upland oak savanna in southern Michigan, common barberry was reported on slightly acidic soils with low water-holding capacity and low soil moisture [16]. During a 1951 survey in southwestern Ontario, common barberry was absent from flat, swampy lands, and when it occurred along streams, it often occupied well drained, steep-sloping banks [52].
As of 2009, few successional studies in common barberry-invaded habitats were available.
Common barberry's tolerance of full sun [2] and full shade [60] and persistence in
wooded areas [40] suggests early- to late-seral communities are potential common barberry
habitat. Though reported in full sun and full shade conditions in western Ontario,
common barberry was more common in partially cleared than deeply shaded, dense woodlands
or forests [52]. In Pennsylvania, common barberry was considered rare in closed-canopy
forests or woodlands [75].
Old field succession: On old fields in Stratfford County, New Hampshire, common barberry importance was greatest in mid- to late-seral communities. Researchers reported the importance (average relative density and relative basal area) of common barberry along a successional chronosequence from recently abandoned fields to mature forests. Common barberry importance was greatest in white pine (Pinus strobus) and eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) forests dominating fields abandoned an average of 81 and 134 years previously, respectively. Importance was lowest in common juniper-Allegheny blackberry-sweetfern (Juniperus communis-Rubus allegheniensis-Comptonia peregrina) communities in fields abandoned 14 to 22 years earlier. Importance was intermediate in oak-virburnum (Viburnum spp.) communities in fields abandoned 45 to 196 years earlier. In habitats with common barberry, photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) averaged 4.3% at a height of 16 inches (40 cm). The range of PAR in common barberry habitats was 0.3% to 52.1% [40].
Grazing: In southeastern Sweden, common barberry appeared to grow best in more densely wooded areas. Without grazing and periodic firewood collection in dry alvar grasslands on Oland Island, grasslands succeed to closed-canopy common juniper woodlands in 100 years. In this area, common barberry was absent from grassland sites grazed by cattle, on sites ungrazed for 20 years, and on sites ungrazed for 55 years. Common barberry occurred only on a site ungrazed for 80 years. Common barberry seedlings did not emerge from soil samples collected at any site [4].
Plant response to fire: Established common barberry shrubs are likely to sprout following top-kill. Heat tolerance of seed is unknown, but a seed bank is produced. Seed dispersal by animals on burned sites is possible; however, common barberry seedling establishment is generally best in shaded sites, which may not occur on recently burned sites. In areas without mature common barberry shrubs, seedlings may not establish until other vegetation grows and produces shade.
Fire failed to control common barberry in studies conducted in conjunction with early eradication. When all common barberry stems, straw, and other brush were piled onto the root crown and burned, common barberry was rarely killed. Even when pile burning was done for 2 to 3 consecutive years, shrubs rarely died [86].
Combustion characteristics of common barberry leaves and twigs were not different from the overall
average of other woody native and nonnative species tested. Combustion was evaluated using a cone
calorimeter. The average effective heat of combustion for common barberry was 14.02 MJ/kg, slightly
greater than the average for all 42 eastern woody native and nonnative species tested (13.4 MJ/kg).
Total heat release for common barberry was 13.11 MJ/kg, while the average for all species tested
was 11.5 MJ/kg [23].
Common barberry is possible in a variety of habitats (see Habitat Types and Plant Communities and Site Characteristics). Altered fire frequency, severity, or behavior in habitats invaded by common barberry was not described in the available literature (2009). See the Fire Regime Table for information on fire regimes in plant communities where common barberry may occur.
Potential for postfire establishment and spread:
On sites where common barberry is established, sprouting and regeneration should be expected
after fire. Burned sites without established common barberry plants should be monitored for
seedlings as vegetation recovers. The potential for long-distance seed
dispersal suggests that recovering burned areas should be monitored for establishment even
if adjacent areas are free of common barberry.
Preventing postfire establishment and spread: Preventing common barberry from establishing in weed-free burned areas is the most effective and least costly management method. This may be accomplished through early detection and eradication, careful monitoring and follow-up, and limiting dispersal of invasive plant seed into burned areas. General recommendations for preventing postfire establishment and spread of invasive plants include:
For more detailed information on these topics see the following publications: [3,10,30,90].
Use of prescribed fire as a control agent: Fire alone is unlikely to control common barberry. Repeated pile burning on top of common barberry root crowns rarely killed established shrubs (see Plant response to fire). However, fire was recommended to kill plants and plant parts that were dug from the ground. Fire was considered effective in killing exposed rhizomes and seeds on stems [86]. Because seeds on cut stems are capable of producing seedlings, reestablishment may be limited by burning cut stems (Atwood 1930 cited in [72]).
Many bird species feed on common barberry fruits [86]; small mammals feed primarily on seedlings
and stem bark [22,87]; livestock browse stems and fruits (Rhind 1857 cited in [44]),[86].
Birds: More than 12 species of birds feed on common barberry fruits in the United States. Birds consumed most fruits in winter or early spring when other foods were unavailable [86]. Common barberry has been recovered from the stomachs of 6 bird species, which included ruffed grouse and northern bobwhites (review by [92]). Ring-necked pheasants, mockingbirds (review by [92]), and cedar waxwings utilized common barberry fruits [99]. Common barberry seeds were recovered from the stomachs of American robins [5]. In May and June in Ithaca, New York, the frequency of barberry in robin feces was 81.5% [33]. In southeastern Spain, observations and fecal analyses revealed that common barberry fruits were consumed and seeds were dispersed primarily by thrushes. They fed on ripe fruits until October and consumed an average of 51.5% of common barberry fruits [69]. Information on seed predation and dispersal by birds was presented in earlier sections.
Small mammals: Common barberry seed predation by small mammals is likely less common than seedling and bark browsing. In Iowa, browsing of common barberry by rabbits was severe after 1-year-old greenhouse-grown seedlings were planted into field plots [22]. Observations made near Syracuse, New York, revealed that rabbits fed extensively on common barberry bark in the winter [87]. Winter feeding by cottontail rabbits in western Massachusetts resulted in moderate common barberry injury [85]. Field studies in southwestern Germany and southern England revealed that mice often quit eating common barberry seeds presented without fruits after the seed coat was removed. Researchers suggested that toxins in the seeds were likely the reason for avoidance by mice [46]. Researchers did not speculate on possible outcomes if fleshy fruits had been presented.
Livestock: According to Rhind (1857 cited in [44]) cattle, sheep, and goats browse common barberry. Cattle browse common barberry and disperse viable seeds [44,86]. For more information, see Seed dispersal.
Palatability and/or nutritional value: Nutritional value of common barberry fruits is reported from Sweden [26] and Spain [37]. In the Tullgarn area of Sweden, common barberry fruits were 76% water [26]. On Spain's Iberian Peninsula, the average dry weight of common barberry fruit pulp was 25.6 mg [37].
Cover value: Although common barberry's use as cover was not addressed in the available literature (2009), its arching form may be useful for various ground-nesting birds and small mammals.
Common barberry fruits have been used in jams and jellies [59], and leaves, stems, and
rhizomes have numerous medicinal uses. The Shinnecock tribe of Long Island boiled common
barberry leaves into a tea to treat jaundice [14]. A review lists many other medicinal
uses: preventing plague, reducing high blood pressure, relieving inflammation, reducing fevers,
improving appetites, soothing upset stomachs, and the treatment of diarrhea, dysentery, malaria,
ulcers, heart burn, and liver and gallbladder ailments. Today common barberry is used to treat
throat, urinary tract, gastrointestinal, lung, and yeast infections. For more about the potential
medicinal uses and precautions with use of common barberry, see the complete review by Arayne
and others [2].
Research shows that common barberry roots, stems, and leaves have antimicrobial and anti-inflammatory properties. Roots are rich in alkaloids including berberine and berbamine (review presented in [95]). Twenty-two alkaloids with medicinal properties have been identified in common barberry roots, leaves, and fruits (review by [2]).
Impacts: The most widespread and commonly described
impact of common barberry's invasion is its ability to act as an alternate host for cereal stem
rusts. As an alternate host, common barberry can support the development of new genotypes able
to attack rust-resistant crops (Leonard 2001 cited in [71]). The wheat rust
(Puccinia graminis) can severely reduce the yield of wheat, oat, and barley crops [77].
Once common barberry was removed from oat production areas of Pennsylvania and wheat production
areas of Virginia, crop yields increased by an average of 123% and 68%, respectively [12].
For more on stem rust and common barberry eradication, see Eradication efforts and effects on local distributions.
Discussions and studies on the impacts of common barberry populations in natural areas were generally lacking as of 2009. The Massachusetts Invasive Plant Advisory Group reports that common barberry has a high potential for spread [60], and Vermont's Agency of Natural Resources suggests that common barberry could displace native vegetation on a localized or widespread scale [94]. See the following sections for additional information on common barberry's potential for spread: Seed dispersal, Seedling establishment, and Vegetative regeneration.
Studies conducted in Ontario indicate that common barberry is often spread along fence rows, throughout pastures, and along river corridors. During a 1951 survey of southwestern Ontario, large and spreading common barberry populations were reported in Elgin, Grey, Kent, Waterloo, and Wellington counties. In Waterloo and Wellington counties, thousands of common barberry shrubs occurred along the Grand and Eramosa rivers, respectively. Along the Grand River, populations were scattered along a 30-mile stretch. In Grey County, populations were spreading "rapidly" in "rough pasture land". In these pastures, common barberry stands covered several hundred acres [52]. During a 1952 survey in eastern Ontario, large common barberry populations occurred in Grenville, Lanark, Leeds, and Prescott counties. Common barberry populations were most common in pastures, along fence rows, along the St Lawrence and Ottawa rivers, and in open woodlands [67]. Dispersal of common barberry seeds by birds and cattle is likely important to the distribution of shrubs in pastures, along fence lines, and in open woods and riparian areas (see Seed dispersal).
Control: With widespread eradication efforts targeting common barberry, well established and successful control methods may be expected. However, many of the early methods used to reduce common barberry populations were time consuming, labor intensive (see Physical or mechanical control), and/or involved chemical experimentation. Most early eradication methods are not feasible or legal today.
In all cases where invasive species are targeted for control, no matter what method is employed, the potential for other invasive species to fill their void must be considered [11]. Control of biotic invasions is most effective when it employs a long-term, ecosystem-wide strategy rather than a tactical approach focused on battling individual invaders [58].
Fire: For information on the use of prescribed fire to control this species, see Fire Management Considerations.
Prevention: It is commonly argued that the most cost-efficient and effective method of managing invasive species is to prevent their establishment and spread by maintaining "healthy" natural communities [58,78] (e.g., avoid road building in wildlands [89]) and by monitoring several times each year [41]. Managing to maintain the integrity of the native plant community and mitigate the factors enhancing ecosystem invasibility is likely to be more effective than managing solely to control the invader [38].
Weed prevention and control can be incorporated into many types of management plans, including those for logging and site preparation, grazing allotments, recreation management, research projects, road building and maintenance, and fire management [90]. See the Guide to noxious weed prevention practices [90] for specific guidelines in preventing the spread of weed seeds and propagules under different management conditions.
Physical or mechanical control: Digging and hand-grubbing were used extensively in early eradication efforts. Effective control using these methods required complete root and rhizome removal. If root and rhizome removal was not done carefully and meticulously, sprouts were "almost sure to develop". Roots or rhizomes 1 foot (0.3 m) or more below ground rarely sprouted, but those near the surface sprouted "readily" [86]. Because sprouting was often abundant in areas where barberry was cut, pulled, or dug, eradication officials poured salt in and around the treated areas, which minimized sprouting, but high levels of seedling production often occurred in treated sites (review by [72]).
Common barberry sprouts following cutting [86], and berries from cut stems can still produce seedlings (Atwood 1930 [72]).
Biological control: Currently (2009) there have been no insects or pathogens released to control common barberry. Control by mammalian herbivores (especially cattle) is unlikely, since common barberry seed is dispersed in feces (see Seed dispersal).
Biological control of invasive species has a long history that indicates many factors must be considered before using biological controls. Refer to these sources: [93,98] and the Weed control methods handbook [88] for background information and important considerations for developing and implementing biological control programs.
Chemical control: Herbicides are effective in gaining initial control of a new invasion or a severe infestation, but they are rarely a complete or long-term solution to weed management [13]. See the Weed control methods handbook [88] for considerations on the use of herbicides in natural areas and detailed information on specific chemicals.
In eastern Ontario and western Quebec, a common barberry eradication program using primarily herbicides was initiated in 1964. After 20 years, common barberry was not eradicated. Eradication occurred at only a few sites where shrubs were scarce initially and herbicide treatments were repeated for several years. There have been few herbicide treatments since 1980, and populations have increased "considerably" [18]. In earlier eradication programs, researchers suggested that chemicals applied to the base of the plant where fine, fibrous roots were concentrated would be most effective [86]. However, the effectiveness of this practice in the field was not reported.
Integrated management: Although using a combination of control methods often produces better results, integrated management in common barberry populations was rarely described in the available literature (2009) (see Use of prescribed fire as a control agent).
The following table provides fire regime information that may be relevant to common barberry habitats. Follow the links in the table to documents that provide more detailed information on these fire regimes.
Fire regime information on vegetation communities in which common barberry may occur. This information is taken from the LANDFIRE Rapid Assessment Vegetation Models [51], which were developed by local experts using available literature, local data, and/or expert opinion. This table summarizes fire regime characteristics for each plant community listed. The PDF file linked from each plant community name describes the model and synthesizes the knowledge available on vegetation composition, structure, and dynamics in that community. Cells are blank where information is not available in the Rapid Assessment Vegetation Model. | |||||||||||
Southwest | |||||||||||
Vegetation Community (Potential Natural Vegetation Group) | Fire severity* | Fire regime characteristics | |||||||||
Percent of fires | Mean interval (years) |
Minimum interval (years) |
Maximum interval (years) |
Southwest Grassland | |||||||||||
Desert grassland with shrubs and trees | Replacement | 85% | 12 | ||||||||
Mixed | 15% | 70 | |||||||||
Plains mesa grassland with shrubs or trees | Replacement | 76% | 20 | ||||||||
Mixed | 24% | 65 | |||||||||
Southwest Shrubland | |||||||||||
Gambel oak | Replacement | 75% | 50 | ||||||||
Mixed | 25% | 150 | |||||||||
Mountain-mahogany shrubland | Replacement | 73% | 75 | ||||||||
Mixed | 27% | 200 | |||||||||
Southwest Woodland | |||||||||||
Pinyon-juniper (mixed fire regime) | Replacement | 29% | 430 | ||||||||
Mixed | 65% | 192 | |||||||||
Surface or low | 6% | >1,000 | |||||||||
Southwest Forested | |||||||||||
Riparian forest with conifers | Replacement | 100% | 435 | 300 | 550 | ||||||
Riparian deciduous woodland | Replacement | 50% | 110 | 15 | 200 | ||||||
Mixed | 20% | 275 | 25 | ||||||||
Surface or low | 30% | 180 | 10 | ||||||||
Ponderosa pine-Douglas-fir (southern Rockies) | Replacement | 15% | 460 | ||||||||
Mixed | 43% | 160 | |||||||||
Surface or low | 43% | 160 | |||||||||
Stable aspen without conifers | Replacement | 81% | 150 | 50 | 300 | ||||||
Surface or low | 19% | 650 | 600 | >1,000 | |||||||
Lodgepole pine (Central Rocky Mountains, infrequent fire) | Replacement | 82% | 300 | 250 | 500 | ||||||
Surface or low | 18% | >1,000 | >1,000 | >1,000 | |||||||
Northern and Central Rockies | |||||||||||
Vegetation Community (Potential Natural Vegetation Group) | Fire severity* | Fire regime characteristics | |||||||||
Percent of fires | Mean interval (years) |
Minimum interval (years) |
Maximum interval (years) |
Northern and Central Rockies Grassland | |||||||||||
Northern prairie grassland | Replacement | 55% | 22 | 2 | 40 | ||||||
Mixed | 45% | 27 | 10 | 50 | |||||||
Mountain grassland | Replacement | 60% | 20 | 10 | |||||||
Mixed | 40% | 30 | |||||||||
Northern and Central Rockies Shrubland | |||||||||||
Mountain shrub, nonsagebrush | Replacement | 80% | 100 | 20 | 150 | ||||||
Mixed | 20% | 400 | |||||||||
Northern and Central Rockies Forested | |||||||||||
Ponderosa pine (Northern and Central Rockies) | Replacement | 4% | 300 | 100 | >1,000 | ||||||
Mixed | 19% | 60 | 50 | 200 | |||||||
Surface or low | 77% | 15 | 3 | 30 | |||||||
Ponderosa pine-Douglas-fir | Replacement | 10% | 250 | >1,000 | |||||||
Mixed | 51% | 50 | 50 | 130 | |||||||
Surface or low | 39% | 65 | 15 | ||||||||
Western redcedar | Replacement | 87% | 385 | 75 | >1,000 | ||||||
Mixed | 13% | >1,000 | 25 | ||||||||
Douglas-fir (xeric interior) | Replacement | 12% | 165 | 100 | 300 | ||||||
Mixed | 19% | 100 | 30 | 100 | |||||||
Surface or low | 69% | 28 | 15 | 40 | |||||||
Douglas-fir (warm mesic interior) | Replacement | 28% | 170 | 80 | 400 | ||||||
Mixed | 72% | 65 | 50 | 250 | |||||||
Grand fir-Douglas-fir-western larch mix | Replacement | 29% | 150 | 100 | 200 | ||||||
Mixed | 71% | 60 | 3 | 75 | |||||||
Mixed conifer-upland western redcedar-western hemlock | Replacement | 67% | 225 | 150 | 300 | ||||||
Mixed | 33% | 450 | 35 | 500 | |||||||
Western larch-lodgepole pine-Douglas-fir | Replacement | 33% | 200 | 50 | 250 | ||||||
Mixed | 67% | 100 | 20 | 140 | |||||||
Grand fir-lodgepole pine-larch-Douglas-fir | Replacement | 31% | 220 | 50 | 250 | ||||||
Mixed | 69% | 100 | 35 | 150 | |||||||
Persistent lodgepole pine | Replacement | 89% | 450 | 300 | 600 | ||||||
Mixed | 11% | >1,000 | |||||||||
Northern Great Plains | |||||||||||
Vegetation Community (Potential Natural Vegetation Group) | Fire severity* | Fire regime characteristics | |||||||||
Percent of fires | Mean interval (years) |
Minimum interval (years) |
Maximum interval (years) |
Northern Plains Grassland | |||||||||||
Central tallgrass prairie | Replacement | 75% | 5 | 3 | 5 | ||||||
Mixed | 11% | 34 | 1 | 100 | |||||||
Surface or low | 13% | 28 | 1 | 50 | |||||||
Northern tallgrass prairie | Replacement | 90% | 6.5 | 1 | 25 | ||||||
Mixed | 9% | 63 | |||||||||
Surface or low | 2% | 303 | |||||||||
Southern tallgrass prairie (East) | Replacement | 96% | 4 | 1 | 10 | ||||||
Mixed | 1% | 277 | |||||||||
Surface or low | 3% | 135 | |||||||||
Oak savanna | Replacement | 7% | 44 | ||||||||
Mixed | 17% | 18 | |||||||||
Surface or low | 76% | 4 | |||||||||
Northern Plains Woodland | |||||||||||
Oak woodland | Replacement | 2% | 450 | ||||||||
Surface or low | 98% | 7.5 | |||||||||
Great Plains floodplain | Replacement | 100% | 500 | ||||||||
Great Lakes | |||||||||||
Vegetation Community (Potential Natural Vegetation Group) | Fire severity* | Fire regime characteristics | |||||||||
Percent of fires | Mean interval (years) |
Minimum interval (years) |
Maximum interval (years) |
Great Lakes Grassland | |||||||||||
Mosaic of bluestem prairie and oak-hickory | Replacement | 79% | 5 | 1 | 8 | ||||||
Mixed | 2% | 260 | |||||||||
Surface or low | 20% | 2 | 33 | ||||||||
Great Lakes Woodland | |||||||||||
Great Lakes pine barrens | Replacement | 8% | 41 | 10 | 80 | ||||||
Mixed | 9% | 36 | 10 | 80 | |||||||
Surface or low | 83% | 4 | 1 | 20 | |||||||
Northern oak savanna | Replacement | 4% | 110 | 50 | 500 | ||||||
Mixed | 9% | 50 | 15 | 150 | |||||||
Surface or low | 87% | 5 | 1 | 20 | |||||||
Great Lakes Forested | |||||||||||
Northern hardwood maple-beech-eastern hemlock | Replacement | 60% | >1,000 | ||||||||
Mixed | 40% | >1,000 | |||||||||
Conifer lowland (embedded in fire-prone system) | Replacement | 45% | 120 | 90 | 220 | ||||||
Mixed | 55% | 100 | |||||||||
Conifer lowland (embedded in fire-resistant ecosystem) | Replacement | 36% | 540 | 220 | >1,000 | ||||||
Mixed | 64% | 300 | |||||||||
Great Lakes floodplain forest | |||||||||||
Mixed | 7% | 833 | |||||||||
Surface or low | 93% | 61 | |||||||||
Great Lakes spruce-fir | Replacement | 100% | 85 | 50 | 200 | ||||||
Minnesota spruce-fir (adjacent to Lake Superior and Drift and Lake Plain) | Replacement | 21% | 300 | ||||||||
Surface or low | 79% | 80 | |||||||||
Northern hardwood-eastern hemlock forest (Great Lakes) | Replacement | 99% | >1,000 | ||||||||
Oak-hickory | Replacement | 13% | 66 | 1 | |||||||
Mixed | 11% | 77 | 5 | ||||||||
Surface or low | 76% | 11 | 2 | 25 | |||||||
Pine-oak | Replacement | 19% | 357 | ||||||||
Surface or low | 81% | 85 | |||||||||
Great Lakes pine forest, eastern white pine-eastern hemlock (frequent fire) | Replacement | 52% | 260 | ||||||||
Mixed | 12% | >1,000 | |||||||||
Surface or low | 35% | 385 | |||||||||
Eastern white pine-eastern hemlock | Replacement | 54% | 370 | ||||||||
Mixed | 12% | >1,000 | |||||||||
Surface or low | 34% | 588 | |||||||||
Northeast | |||||||||||
Vegetation Community (Potential Natural Vegetation Group) | Fire severity* | Fire regime characteristics | |||||||||
Percent of fires | Mean interval (years) |
Minimum interval (years) |
Maximum interval (years) |
Northeast Grassland | |||||||||||
Northern coastal marsh | Replacement | 97% | 7 | 2 | 50 | ||||||
Mixed | 3% | 265 | 20 | ||||||||
Northeast Woodland | |||||||||||
Eastern woodland mosaic | Replacement | 2% | 200 | 100 | 300 | ||||||
Mixed | 9% | 40 | 20 | 60 | |||||||
Surface or low | 89% | 4 | 1 | 7 | |||||||
Pine barrens | Replacement | 10% | 78 | ||||||||
Mixed | 25% | 32 | |||||||||
Surface or low | 65% | 12 | |||||||||
Oak-pine (eastern dry-xeric) | Replacement | 4% | 185 | ||||||||
Mixed | 7% | 110 | |||||||||
Surface or low | 90% | 8 | |||||||||
Northeast Forested | |||||||||||
Northern hardwoods (Northeast) | Replacement | 39% | >1,000 | ||||||||
Mixed | 61% | 650 | |||||||||
Eastern white pine-northern hardwoods | Replacement | 72% | 475 | ||||||||
Surface or low | 28% | >1,000 | |||||||||
Northern hardwoods-eastern hemlock | Replacement | 50% | >1,000 | ||||||||
Surface or low | 50% | >1,000 | |||||||||
Northern hardwoods-spruce | Replacement | 100% | >1,000 | 400 | >1,000 | ||||||
Appalachian oak forest (dry-mesic) | Replacement | 2% | 625 | 500 | >1,000 | ||||||
Mixed | 6% | 250 | 200 | 500 | |||||||
Surface or low | 92% | 15 | 7 | 26 | |||||||
Beech-maple | Replacement | 100% | >1,000 | ||||||||
Northeast spruce-fir forest | Replacement | 100% | 265 | 150 | 300 | ||||||
Southeastern red spruce-Fraser fir | Replacement | 100% | 500 | 300 | >1,000 | ||||||
Southern Appalachians | |||||||||||
Vegetation Community (Potential Natural Vegetation Group) | Fire severity* | Fire regime characteristics | |||||||||
Percent of fires | Mean interval (years) |
Minimum interval (years) |
Maximum interval (years) |
Southern Appalachians Grassland | |||||||||||
Bluestem-oak barrens | Replacement | 46% | 15 | ||||||||
Mixed | 10% | 69 | |||||||||
Surface or low | 44% | 16 | |||||||||
Eastern prairie-woodland mosaic | Replacement | 50% | 10 | ||||||||
Mixed | 1% | 900 | |||||||||
Surface or low | 50% | 10 | |||||||||
Southern Appalachians Woodland | |||||||||||
Oak-ash woodland | Replacement | 23% | 119 | ||||||||
Mixed | 28% | 95 | |||||||||
Surface or low | 49% | 55 | |||||||||
Southern Appalachians Forested | |||||||||||
Mixed mesophytic hardwood | Replacement | 11% | 665 | ||||||||
Mixed | 10% | 715 | |||||||||
Surface or low | 79% | 90 | |||||||||
Eastern hemlock-eastern white pine-hardwood | Replacement | 17% | >1,000 | 500 | >1,000 | ||||||
Surface or low | 83% | 210 | 100 | >1,000 | |||||||
Oak (eastern dry-xeric) | Replacement | 6% | 128 | 50 | 100 | ||||||
Mixed | 16% | 50 | 20 | 30 | |||||||
Surface or low | 78% | 10 | 1 | 10 | |||||||
Appalachian oak forest (dry-mesic) | Replacement | 6% | 220 | ||||||||
Mixed | 15% | 90 | |||||||||
Surface or low | 79% | 17 | |||||||||
*Fire Severities— Replacement: Any fire that causes greater than 75% top removal of a vegetation-fuel type, resulting in general replacement of existing vegetation; may or may not cause a lethal effect on the plants. Mixed: Any fire burning more than 5% of an area that does not qualify as a replacement, surface, or low-severity fire; includes mosaic and other fires that are intermediate in effects. Surface or low: Any fire that causes less than 25% upper layer replacement and/or removal in a vegetation-fuel class but burns 5% or more of the area [34,50]. |
1. Adams, John. 1927. The germination of the seeds of some plants with fleshy fruits. American Journal of Botany. 14(8): 415-428. [48174]
2. Arayne, M. Saeed; Sultana, Najma; Bahadur, Saima Sher. 2007. The Berberis story: Berberis vulgaris in theraputics. Pakistan Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences. 20(1): 83-92. [74519]
3. Asher, Jerry; Dewey, Steven; Olivarez, Jim; Johnson, Curt. 1998. Minimizing weed spread following wildland fires. Proceedings, Western Society of Weed Science. 51: 49. [40409]
4. Bakker, J. P.; Bakker, E. S.; Rosen, E.; Verweij, G. L.; Bekker, R. M. 1996. Soil seed bank composition along a gradient from dry alvar grassland to Juniperus shrubland. Journal of Vegetation Science. 7(2): 165-176. [74555]
5. Beal, F. E. L. 1915. Food of the robins and bluebirds of the United States. Bulletin of the U.S. Department of Agriculture No. 171. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 31 p. [24990]
6. Bicknell, Eugene P. 1910. The ferns and flowering plants of Nantucket--VI. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 37(2): 51-72. [74563]
7. Booth, W. E.; Wright, J. C. 1962. [Revised]. Flora of Montana: Part II--Dicotyledons. Bozeman, MT: Montana State College, Department of Botany and Bacteriology. 280 p. [47286]
8. Braun, E. Lucy. 1989. The woody plants of Ohio. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press. 362 p. [12914]
9. Britton, Wilton Everett. 1903. Vegetation of the North Haven sand plains. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 30(11): 571-620. [74594]
10. Brooks, Matthew L. 2008. Effects of fire suppression and postfire management activities on plant invasions. In: Zouhar, Kristin; Smith, Jane Kapler; Sutherland, Steve; Brooks, Matthew L., eds. Wildland fire in ecosystems: Fire and nonnative invasive plants. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 6. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 269-280. [70909]
11. Brooks, Matthew L.; Pyke, David A. 2001. Invasive plants and fire in the deserts of North America. In: Galley, Krista E. M.; Wilson, Tyrone P., eds. Proceedings of the invasive species workshop: The role of fire in the control and spread of invasive species; Fire conference 2000: 1st national congress on fire ecology, prevention, and management; 2000 November 27 - December 1; San Diego, CA. Misc. Publ. No. 11. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 1-14. [40491]
12. Bulger, R. O. 1957. Barberry eradication in the United States. In: Proceedings, report of the 3rd international wheat rust conference; 1956 March 18-24; Mexico City, Mexico. Beltsville, MD: Plant Industry Station: 116-118. [74520]
13. Bussan, Alvin J.; Dyer, William E. 1999. Herbicides and rangeland. In: Sheley, Roger L.; Petroff, Janet K., eds. Biology and management of noxious rangeland weeds. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press: 116-132. [35716]
14. Carr, Lloyd G.; Westey, Carlos. 1945. Surviving folktales and herbal lore among the Shinnecock Indians of Long Island. The Journal of American Folklore. 58(228): 113-123. [74549]
15. Carter, Jack L. 1997. Trees and shrubs of New Mexico. Boulder, CO: Johnson Books. 534 p. [72647]
16. Catana, A. J., Jr. 1967. Forests of the Harvey N. Ott Preserve. The American Midland Naturalist. 78(2): 496-507. [74552]
17. Chapman, William K.; Bessette, Alan E. 1990. Trees and shrubs of the Adirondacks. Utica, NY: North Country Books, Inc. 131 p. [12766]
18. Clark, R. V.; Seaman, W. L.; Martens, J. W. 1986. Puccinia graminis on barberry and oats in eastern Ontario from 1968 to 1983. Canadian Journal of Plant Pathology. 8(2): 193-200. [74513]
19. Claypole, E. W. 1886. Notes on some introduced plants, chiefly in Summit Co., Ohio. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 13(10): 187-188. [74531]
20. Curtis, John T. 1959. Weed communities. In: Curtis, John T. The vegetation of Wisconsin. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press: 412-434. [60533]
21. Czarapata, Elizabeth J. 2005. Invasive plants of the Upper Midwest: An illustrated guide to their identification and control. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press. 215 p. [71442]
22. Denton, Ralph Robert. 1952. Germination and establishment of the common barberry (Berberis vulgaris L.). Ames, IA: Iowa State College. 32 p. Thesis. [74596]
23. Dibble, Alison C.; White, Robert H.; Lebow, Patricia K. 2007. Combustion characteristics of north-eastern USA vegetation tested in the cone calorimeter: invasive versus non-invasive plants. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 16(4): 426-443. [68947]
24. Dirr, Michael A. 1998. Manual of woody landscape plants: Their identification, ornamental characteristics, culture, propagation and uses. 5th ed. Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing. 1187 p. [74836]
25. Dooley, Tom. 2003. Lessons learned from eleven years of prescribed fire at the Albany Pine Bush Preserve. In: Bennett, Karen P.; Dibble, Alison C.; Patterson, William A., III, compilers. Using fire to control invasive plants: what's new, what works in the Northeast?--2003 workshop proceedings; 2003 January 24; Portsmouth, NH. Durham, NH: University of New Hampshire, Cooperative Extension: 7-10. Available online: http://extension.unh.edu/resources/files/Resource000412_Rep434.pdf. [73211]
26. Eriksson, Ove; Ehrlen, Johan. 1991. Phenological variation of fruit characteristics in vertebrate-dispersed plants. Oecologia. 86 (4): 463-470. [74281]
27. Flora of North America Association. 2009. Flora of North America: The flora, [Online]. Flora of North America Association (Producer). Available: http://www.fna.org/FNA. [36990]
28. Fulling, Edmund H. 1943. Plant life and the law of man. IV. Barberry, currant, and gooseberry, and cedar control. Botanical Review. 9(8): 483-592. [74546]
29. Gleason, Henry A.; Cronquist, Arthur. 1991. Manual of vascular plants of northeastern United States and adjacent Canada. 2nd ed. New York: New York Botanical Garden. 910 p. [20329]
30. Goodwin, Kim; Sheley, Roger; Clark, Janet. 2002. Integrated noxious weed management after wildfires. EB-160. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University, Extension Service. 46 p. Available online: http://www.montana.edu/wwwpb/pubs/eb160.html [2003, October 1]. [45303]
31. Great Plains Flora Association. 1986. Flora of the Great Plains. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. 1392 p. [1603]
32. Halsted, Byron D. 1889. Observations upon barberry flowers. Botanical Gazette. 14(8): 201. [74560]
33. Hamilton, W. J., Jr. 1943. Spring food of the robin in central New York. The Auk. 60: 273. [75398]
34. Hann, Wendel; Havlina, Doug; Shlisky, Ayn; [and others]. 2008. Interagency fire regime condition class guidebook. Version 1.3, [Online]. In: Interagency fire regime condition class website. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior; The Nature Conservancy; Systems for Environmental Management (Producer). 119 p. Available: http://frames.nbii.gov/frcc/documents/FRCC_Guidebook_2008.07.10.pdf [2008, September 03]. [70966]
35. Harrington, H. D. 1964. Manual of the plants of Colorado. 2nd ed. Chicago, IL: The Swallow Press, Inc. 666 p. [6851]
36. Herrera, Carlos M. 1982. Breeding systems and dispersal-related maternal reproductive effort of southern Spanish bird-dispersed plants. Evolution. 36(6): 1299-1314. [74582]
37. Herrera, Carlos M. 1987. Vertebrate-dispersed plants of the Iberian Peninsula: A study of fruit characteristics. Ecological Monographs. 57(4): 305-331. [74593]
38. Hobbs, Richard J.; Humphries, Stella E. 1995. An integrated approach to the ecology and management of plant invasions. Conservation Biology. 9(4): 761-770. [44463]
39. Hollick, Arthur; Britton, N. L. 1886. Flora of Richmond County, N. Y.: Additions and new localities, 1885. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 13(5): 83-84. [74533]
40. Howard, Lauren F.; Lee, Thomas D. 2002. Upland old-field succession in southeastern New Hampshire. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society. 129(1): 60-76. [44551]
41. Johnson, Douglas E. 1999. Surveying, mapping, and monitoring noxious weeds on rangelands. In: Sheley, Roger L.; Petroff, Janet K., eds. Biology and management of noxious rangeland weeds. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press: 19-36. [35707]
42. Kartesz, John T. 1999. A synonymized checklist and atlas with biological attributes for the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 1st ed. In: Kartesz, John T.; Meacham, Christopher A. Synthesis of the North American flora (Windows Version 1.0), [CD-ROM]. Chapel Hill, NC: North Carolina Botanical Garden (Producer). In cooperation with: The Nature Conservancy; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service; U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. [36715]
43. Kern, Frank D. 1921. Distribution of Berberis vulgaris in Pennsylvania. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 48(10): 263-269. [74526]
44. Kern, Frank D. 1921. Observations of the dissemination of the barberry. Ecology. 2(3): 211-214. [74532]
45. Kollmann, J.; Coomes, D. A.; White, S. M. 1998. Consistencies in post-dispersal seed predation of temperate fleshy-fruited species among seasons, years and sites. Functional Ecology. 12(4): 683-690. [74517]
46. Kollmann, Johannes. 1995. Regeneration window for fleshy-fruited plants during scrub development on abandoned grassland. Ecoscience. 2(3): 213-222. [69004]
47. Kollmann, Johannes; Reiner, Susann A. 1996. Light demands of shrub seedlings and their establishment within scrublands. Flora. 191(2): 191-200. [74511]
48. Krefting, Laurits W.; Roe, Eugene I. 1949. The role of some birds and mammals in seed germination. Ecological Monographs. 19(3): 269-286. [8847]
49. Lackschewitz, Klaus. 1991. Vascular plants of west-central Montana--identification guidebook. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-227. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 648 p. [13798]
50. LANDFIRE Rapid Assessment. 2005. Reference condition modeling manual (Version 2.1), [Online]. In: LANDFIRE. Cooperative Agreement 04-CA-11132543-189. Boulder, CO: The Nature Conservancy; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior (Producers). 72 p. Available: http://www.landfire.gov/downloadfile.php?file=RA_Modeling_Manual_v2_1.pdf [2007, May 24]. [66741]
51. LANDFIRE Rapid Assessment. 2007. Rapid assessment reference condition models, [Online]. In: LANDFIRE. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Lab; U.S. Geological Survey; The Nature Conservancy (Producers). Available: http://www.landfire.gov/models_EW.php [2008, April 18] [66533]
52. Lindsay, D. R. 1951. Survey of common barberry (Berberis vulgaris L.) in southwestern Ontario. Ottawa: Department of Agriculture, Division of Botany and Plant Pathology, Science Service. 19 p. [74512]
53. Lubelczyk, Chuck. 2001. The good, the bad, and the thorny. Watermark: A Quarterly Newsletter of the Landholm Trust. Wells, ME: Laudholm Trust; Wells National Estuarine Research Reserve. 18(3): 6. Available online: http://www.wellsreserve.org/watermark/v18n3p6.pdf [2008, February 27]. [69536]
54. Mack, R. N. 1986. Alien plant invasion into the Intermountain West: A case history. In: Mooney, Harold A.; Drake, James A., eds. Ecology of biological invasions of North America and Hawaii. Ecological Studies 58. New York: Springer-Verlag: 191-213. [17516]
55. Mack, Richard N. 1991. The commercial seed trade: an early disperser of weeds in the United States. Economic Botany. 45(2): 257-273. [55368]
56. Mack, Richard N. 2003. Plant naturalizations and invasions in the eastern United States: 1634-1860. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden. 90(1): 77-90. [51128]
57. Mack, Richard N.; Erneberg, Marianne. 2002. The United States naturalized flora: largely the product of deliberate introductions. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden. 89(2): 176-189. [74577]
58. Mack, Richard N.; Simberloff, Daniel; Lonsdale, W. Mark; Evans, Harry; Clout, Michael; Bazzaz, Fakhri A. 2000. Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecological Applications. 10(3): 689-710. [48324]
59. Magee, Dennis W.; Ahles, Harry E. 2007. Flora of the Northeast: A manual of the vascular flora of New England and adjacent New York. 2nd ed. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press. 1214 p. [74293]
60. Massachusetts Invasive Plant Advisory Group (MIPAG). 2005. Strategic recommendations for managing invasive plants in Massachusetts. Final report: February 28, 2005, [Online]. Massachusetts Invasive Plant Advisory Group (Producer). Available: http://www.massnrc.org/mipag/docs/STRATEGIC_PLAN_FINAL_042005.pdf [2009, July 2]. [71599]
61. Matias, Luis; Mendoza, Irene; Zamora, Regino. 2009. Consistent pattern of habitat and species selection by post-dispersal seed predators in a Mediterranean mosaic landscape. Plant Ecology. 203: 137-147. [75394]
62. Mehrhoff, L. J.; Silander, J. A., Jr.; Leicht, S. A.; Mosher, E. S.; Tabak, N. M. 2003. IPANE: Invasive Plant Atlas of New England, [Online]. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology (Producer). Available: http://nbii-nin.ciesin.columbia.edu/ipane/ [2008, May 28]. [70356]
63. Melander, L. W. 1939. Battling the barberry. Minnesota Conservationist. 67: 17-18. [75396]
64. Minore, Don; Rudolf, Paul O. 2003. Berberis L.--barberry. In: Bonner, Franklin T.; Karrfalt, Robert P., eds. The woody plant seed manual. Agriculture Handbook 727. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 298-302. [75507]
65. Mohlenbrock, Robert H. 1986. [Revised edition]. Guide to the vascular flora of Illinois. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. 507 p. [17383]
66. Morinaga, Toshitaro. 1926. Effect of alternating temperatures upon the germination of seeds. American Journal of Botany. 13(2): 141-158. [69526]
67. Mulligan, G. A. 1952. Survey of common barberry (Berberis vulgaris L.) and the European buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica L.) in eastern Ontario. Ottawa: Department of Agriculture, Division of Botany and Plant Pathology, Science Service. 23 p. [72602]
68. Nieuwland, J. A. 1914. Notes on our local plants.--IX. The American Midland Naturalist. 3(12): 346-351. [74535]
69. Obesco, Jose Ramon. 1989. Fruit removal and potential seed dispersal in a southern Spanish population of Berberis vulgaris subsp. australis (Berberidaceae). Acta Oecologica/Oecologia Plantarum. 10(3): 321-328. [74523]
70. Olmstead, Charles E. 1937. Vegetation of certain sand plains of Connecticut. Botanical Gazette. 99(2): 209-300. [74595]
71. Peterson, P. D.; Leonard, K. J.; Miller, J. D.; Laudon, R. J. 2005. Prevalence and distribution of common barberry, the alternate host of Puccinia graminis, in Minnesota. Plant Disease. 89: 159-163. [74509]
72. Peterson, Paul David. 2003. The common barberry: the past and present situation in Minnesota and the risk of wheat stem rust epidemics. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University. 206 p. Dissertation. [75399]
73. Plass, William T. 1975. An evaluation of trees and shrubs for planting surface-mine spoils. Res. Pap. NE-317. Upper Darby, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 8 p. [46129]
74. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
75. Rhoads, Ann F.; Block, Timothy A. 2002. Invasive plant fact sheet: Japanese barberry--Berberis thunbergii, [Online]. In: Delaware River Invasive Plant Partnership. In: The Pennsylvania Flora Project. Philadelphia, PA: The Pennsylvania Flora Project, Botany Department, Morris Arboretum of the University of Pennsylvania (Producer). Available: http://www.paflora.org/Berberis%20thunbergii.pdf [2009, October 2]. [75425]
76. Roland, A. E.; Smith, E. C. 1969. The flora of Nova Scotia. Halifax, NS: Nova Scotia Museum. 746 p. [13158]
77. Royer, France; Dickinson, Richard. 1999. Weeds of the northern U.S. and Canada: a guide for identification. Edmonton, AB: The University of Alberta Press; Renton, WA: Lone Pine Publishing. 434 p. [52727]
78. Sheley, Roger; Manoukian, Mark; Marks, Gerald. 1999. Preventing noxious weed invasion. In: Sheley, Roger L.; Petroff, Janet K., eds. Biology and management of noxious rangeland weeds. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press: 69-72. [35711]
79. Soper, James H.; Heimburger, Margaret L. 1982. Shrubs of Ontario. Life Sciences Miscellaneous Publications. Toronto, ON: Royal Ontario Museum. 495 p. [12907]
80. Stakman, E. C. 1923. Destroy the common barberry. Farmers' Bulletin 1058. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Plant Industry. 12 p. [76004]
81. Steffey, Jane. 1985. Strange relatives: the barberry family. American Horticulturalist. 64(4): 4-9. [10354]
82. Stephens, H. A. 1973. Woody plants of the North Central Plains. Lawrence, KS: The University Press of Kansas. 530 p. [3804]
83. Stickney, Peter F. 1989. Seral origin of species comprising secondary plant succession in Northern Rocky Mountain forests. FEIS workshop: Postfire regeneration. Unpublished draft on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 10 p. [20090]
84. Strausbaugh, P. D.; Core, Earl L. 1977. Flora of West Virginia. 2nd ed. Morgantown, WV: Seneca Books, Inc. 1079 p. [23213]
85. Sweetman, Harvey L. 1949. Further studies of the winter feeding habits of cottontail rabbits. Ecology. 30(3): 371-376. [72521]
86. Thompson, Noel F.; Robbins, W. W. 1926. Methods of eradicating the common barberry (Berberis vulgaris L.). Department Bulletin No. 1451. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 45 p. In cooperation with: University of Wisconsin; Wisconsin Department of Agriculture. [74515]
87. Todd, John B. 1927. Winter food of cottontail rabbits. Journal of Mammalogy. 8(3): 222-228. [74541]
88. Tu, Mandy; Hurd, Callie; Randall, John M., eds. 2001. Weed control methods handbook: tools and techniques for use in natural areas. Davis, CA: The Nature Conservancy. 194 p. [37787]
89. Tyser, Robin W.; Worley, Christopher A. 1992. Alien flora in grasslands adjacent to road and trail corridors in Glacier National Park, Montana (U.S.A.). Conservation Biology. 6(2): 253-262. [19435]
90. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2001. Guide to noxious weed prevention practices. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 25 p. Available online: http://www.fs.fed.us/rangelands/ftp/invasives/documents/Guideto NoxWeedPrevPractices_07052001.pdf [2005, October 25]. [37889]
91. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2009. PLANTS Database, [Online]. Available: http://plants.usda.gov/. [34262]
92. Van Dersal, William R. 1938. Native woody plants of the United States, their erosion-control and wildlife values. Misc. Publ. No. 303. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 362 p. [4240]
93. Van Driesche, Roy; Lyon, Suzanne; Blossey, Bernd; Hoddle, Mark; Reardon, Richard, tech. coords. 2002. Biological control of invasive plants in the eastern United States. USDA Forest Service Publication FHTET-2002-04. [Washington, DC]: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 413 p. Available online: http://www.invasive.org/eastern/biocontrol/index.html [2005, August 12]. [54194]
94. Vermont Agency of Natural Resources. 1998. Invasive exotic plants of Vermont: A list of the state's most troublesome weeds. Vermont Invasive Exotic Plant Fact Sheet Series. Waterbury, VT: Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Department of Environmental Conservation; Department of Fish and Wildlife, Nongame and Natural Hertiage Program. 2 p. In cooperation with: The Nature Conservancy of Vermont. [38461]
95. Villinski, Jacquelyn R.; Dumas, Elizabeth R.; Chai, Hee-Byung; Pezzuto, John M.; Angerhofer, Cindy K.; Gafner, Stefan. 2003. Antibacterial activity and alkaloid content of Berberis thunbergii, Berberis vulgaris and Hydrastis canadensis. Pharmaceutical Biology. 41(8): 551-557. [65348]
96. Voss, Edward G. 1985. Michigan flora. Part II. Dicots (Saururaceae--Cornaceae). Bulletin 59. Bloomfield Hills, MI: Cranbrook Institute of Science; Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Herbarium. 724 p. [11472]
97. Weber, William A.; Wittmann, Ronald C. 1996. Colorado flora: eastern slope. 2nd ed. Niwot, CO: University Press of Colorado. 524 p. [27572]
98. Wilson, Linda M.; McCaffrey, Joseph P. 1999. Biological control of noxious rangeland weeds. In: Sheley, Roger L.; Petroff, Janet K., eds. Biology and management of noxious rangeland weeds. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press: 97-115. [35715]
99. Witmer, Mark C. 1996. Annual diet of cedar waxwings based on U.S. Biological Survey records (1885-1950) compared to diet of American robins: contrasts in dietary patterns and natural history. The Auk. 113(2): 414-430. [74528]
100. Woodcock, E. F. 1925. Observations on the poisonous plants of Michigan. American Journal of Botany. 12(2): 116-131. [62183]


text:
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Family Drama
I've seen other couples say, "It's not worth the fight. At least we get to plan the honeymoon."
And still other couples take more of a middle-ground approach and try to balance their tastes, preferences, and desires with those of their families since--the argument goes--a wedding is also about the community.
I used to naively think that the family drama that comes up during the wedding planning process is the worst it gets. I used to think that whichever route you pick for yourself doesn't matter too much because regardless of how much family drama there is during the planning process, you'll likely be happily married in the end. And, once the wedding is said and done, it's a lot easier to see a wedding as one important day in a long line of many.
However, as Matt and I start to discuss birthing options (no, I'm not pregnant; I'm just a planner), I'm beginning to realize that there are potentially lots of ways in which family can contribute to (or interfere with--depending on your perspective) important life decisions. As I entertain the idea of giving birth at home or in a birthing center (if I get pregnant, that is), for example, I worry that all sides of the family will consider the decision unsafe and irresponsible. I anticipate very stressful conversations.
It just made me realize that how we choose to negotiate our weddings with our families can set important precedents. Of course you can renegotiate your family's influence on your life at any point, but it's worth thinking about the long-term implications of our initial decisions.
What route are you (or did you) take with your family? How did it work out for you?
17 comments:
- Sarah said...
I give where I don't feel as strongly. For example, we are having a very secular wedding, but my father is quite religious. He asked us to have a religious ceremony the day before, and he even offered to do it for us (my family's not Christian, so it works a little differently). This is something I don't care about, but I know it would make my dad happier, and my fiance is totally cool with it, so we're doing it.
Research and some sort of certification might help in your case, Sara! :) Show them that there are many women who go the homebirth or birthing center route. Or, if you want to give a little, you can also find a midwife that will deliver in a hospital (kind of a "just in case" measure). My aunt does this. - April 29, 2010 at 7:02 AM
- Tamara Williams said...
I have been amazed at how much my attitude towards wedding planning with (for?) my family mirrors my relationship to them as a child. I over-anticipate their every want and need, and try to smoosh that into what used to be my vision and budget. The upside, most of my family doesn't ask about details. The down side, my wedding has become a site for me to relive my childhood (ick!).
I agree wholeheartedly that this is only the (re)beginning of how you will engage with the people who made you, with the added nuance of being primarily in sync with your partner. No sweat, right? Right? - April 29, 2010 at 7:06 AM
- miss fancy pants (the bride) said...
We give in for things we don't care about and do our best to stand our ground where it matters to us. My mother wants to have a couples shower, not the Mr.'s cup of tea, but we're doing it. His mother wanted a giant rehearsal dinner with all 40 of the out of town guests, but we really wanted to keep the dinner intimate, so we're standing our ground. It's good on one hand because it ensures that we're getting the wedding we truly want as a couple. On the other hand, some people see our standing ground as selfish and displaying an unwillingness to compromise. Either way, I think the couple has to do what's right for them or they won't enjoy their wedding as much as they could have.
- April 29, 2010 at 8:19 AM
- Stephanie said...
My mom has actually been surprisingly supportive of my ideas. I think it has more to do with me putting my foot down generally in recent years.
On the home birth front, I said to my parents that there is no way i'm going to the hospital unless its an emergency. Ideally I'd like a home birth, but a birthing center is probably safer. Since my parents are both immigrants from Cuba, they were super supportive of the home birth idea. My dad even told me he was born on the kitchen table! SO sometimes it can be surprising what family thinks.
stephanie-falcon.blogspot.com - April 29, 2010 at 8:50 AM
- Budget Wise Weddings said...
It's very true that the family behavior during the wedding planning process can be expected throughout all of the important aspects of your life together-- unless you tactfully stress that it is YOUR life together, not anyone else's. I planned to have a natural birth (not at home, though) and I had people in my husband's family making comments like "do you also ask the dentist not to give you novacaine when he pulls your teeth??" I can only imagine what they were saying behind my back. But at the end of the day, you can't please everyone so you've got to try to please yourself!
- April 29, 2010 at 9:21 AM
- Elizabeth said...
I had my first child at the hospital and then three children at home. My mother in law is an OB Nurse Practitioner. Needless to say there was lots of discussion. But, in the end she was supportive and was present at all the home births.
Home birth was the most wonderful experience. - April 29, 2010 at 10:12 AM
- Sarah M said...
My strategy with wedding planning has been to explain my values and how a particular decision (e.g., color of my dress, whom we invite) is in accordance with those values. Since my family and my new in-laws are all generally reasonable and supportive people this tends to work well. It has to be a 2-way street though. I'm willing to listen to their concerns, worries, preferences, and take them into account. Part of my values is that they are having their most important needs met as much as possible, since I do think of a wedding as a family event, not only for the two of us.
When it comes to giving birth, though, you have to do what's right for you! You can explain it and show them why and listen respectfully to their concerns (probably out of anxiety and genuine care for you and their future grandchild), but that's a decision that really belongs to the parents. Good luck! - April 29, 2010 at 10:55 AM
- Mommy in the Making said...
Okay - so I won't go into my whole birthing story (it's here if you want to read it - http://mommyinthemaking.tumblr.com/post/366046805/birth)
ANYhow - Adam (baby daddy) and I watched The Business of Being Born (if you haven't watched it do - for women EVERYWHERE who might, ever have a baby!) It was amazing. And so mind blowing. My mom was really against giving birth anywhere other than a hospital. Really against it. She only gave birth once (well twice technically since I was a twin) and everything that could have gone wrong did. She was on bed rest for 6 weeks before, had a terrible infection, was in labor FOREVER, just on an on. So, understandably, she was afraid for me. I sent her home with our BOBB netflix disc and instructed her to watch it. And she didn't. FINALLY like a month and a half later she watched it. I asked her what she thought and all she said was 'that was clearly a skewed perspective.' Sigh. At one point she kept making little comments and I finally said, 'Mom, this is what we've decided. I know how you feel about it but this is our choice.' I do think it helped her that the birth center we chose (well not really chose, it is the ONLY one in the Boston area) was right across the street from the hospital. I would like to have my next at home and I think she's REALLY going to flip about that. But oh well. Now if only I could stand up to her that gracefully about the wedding we're planning! But she is paying for that - so compromise it is. But when it comes to having a baby, it's all about what will make you happy and comfortable and confident going into it. You family and friends, regardless of their opinions, won't be the ones in labor!
Amanda - April 29, 2010 at 11:17 AM
- "T-Bone" Lee said...
I think having the conversation Amanda had with her mom is basically the way to go. "this is what I've decided and I need you to respect that.". I also think having a plan B is really important to put their minds at ease...so they know you're not naively assuming nothing could possibly go wrong.
- April 29, 2010 at 1:47 PM
- Melissa said...
I'm trying to learn from my mom's experiences in dealing with her family. She was totally unyeilding with her wedding, and because of that, her father didn't even come to it. But when she had kids, she worried so much about what her family would think of what she named us, that gave in and did what they want. I was supposed to be a Bridget, but her family thought that wasn't a good name, and she unfortunately gave in, and gave me a relatively boring name (not that Bridget is even that weird!).
I'm trying to find some middle ground. It helps that I already know that whatever I've done in the past has always somewhat perplexed my family, so they should be used to not being on the same page as me in my wedding plans. - April 29, 2010 at 3:15 PM
I'm one of your "older" readers...probably closer to the age of your mothers, but I've been following your blog since my daughter is getting married soon. (You have a lot of GREAT ideas!!)
Even though I've never "commented" before, I've got to chime in on the home-birth plan. I teach Child Development classes at the high school level and we get pretty "down and dirty" with all the details of childbirth. I've covered in depth the different choices available for delivery. I had my own children without any drugs whatsoever, but the delivery was in a hospital. I remember my relatives thinking that I was crazy just to do that! I still agree that the more natural methods without drugs are beneficial to the baby.
However, age has given me perspective. I personally know 4 different women who gave birth at home only to have serious problems. Sadly, one of my friend's daughter's just gave birth at home last November and her baby died. This mother had already given birth to her first 2 children at home and was obviously prepared...however, you just cannot predict problems that occur VERY quickly and with dire consequences. I know most hospitals now have nurse/midwives who are more receptive to "personal wishes" but since you are at a hospital or birthing center, you have the best of both worlds. You just cannot duplicate the technology that is available for you there.
At the end of the day, all you want is a healthy child. Just be sure you're not choosing a home birth because you can "be in charge" of the whole experience. (I'm a self-confessed control freak, so I know the problem well!) After all, the birth process will be over (if you're lucky!) in less than a day. But any complications may influence the rest of your life. I'm aware that "everyone is different" and I'm sure your readers can give 1000's of examples where the home birth worked out great. But this is much different that deciding to have a wedding in a church or on a mountain top.
Sorry if I sound "preachy"....just trying to add a different perspective. - April 29, 2010 at 4:14 PM
- Collections from my Heart said...
in my own experience parents/family/friends in the end usually just want to be helpful and feel included. (some "help" and "include" themselves more than others and in more of an acertive way) I for one believe that a wedding is a day for the bride and groom and it is important to be polite yet assertive yourself. Finding a task for a family member to be in charge of, one that you dont mind putting in their hands, is a great way for them to help out and feel included.
On another note, regarding home birthing. I feel I have an open mind to a lot of things. If home birthing is your choice all I say is be prepared, have a back up plan and Heaven forbid something does go wrong, dont feel you failed and keep an open mind to going to a hospital in case it is needed. Best Wishes! - April 29, 2010 at 6:52 PM
- cileag said...
I look back now and find that the wedding was really just the jumping off point for negotiations. Luckily, my parents are very supportive and his parents are usually pretty quiet about their opinions, so I didn't any guff when I chose to birth at home. Also, I think they figured that since I'm a labor and delivery nurse, I'm well aware of the risks and benefits of the various places of delivery.
Good luck planning things out---my birth was lovely, incredible in so many ways and very safe. :) - April 29, 2010 at 10:40 PM
- Pip said...
As this was my 3rd wedding and his 2nd, our families didn't offer much input unless they were asked for it, and boy, did we ever ask! We had to change the location of our reception about 5 weeks before the wedding, which entailed a lot of work. We asked our families for help in finding a new locatin and they scrambled to search. When we asked for help with decorating, 6 people showed up and stayed all day. When I needed help with the food, my cousin, bless her heart, baked 10 dozen cup cakes, made vegetable trays and pasta salad and more!
We were so very lucky that we had understanding relatives that supported us and just wanted us to be happy. I clearly remember being asked several times, "is this OK?" or "how do you want this?" and I just said, "anything you do is fine. I just appreciate the help and all that matters is that at the end of the night, I'm gonna be married." We were lucky. - April 30, 2010 at 8:46 AM
When planning our 38 person wedding we wanted only immediate family and very close friends to attend.
Both of us come from large families and couldn't even come close to affording a wedding that would involve everyone. We decided instead to have the actual ceremony one weekend and then later have a pot-luck party inviting all of the family and friends we were unable to originally invite. It worked out perfectly.
In terms of planning the birth the way we want it (we're due in September) I was straight up with my folks that I wanted to have it at a birthing center.. ideally at home but home is an apartment in the city with thin walls and little-to-no privacy.
At first my mom was terrified.. couldn't help herself with all the "what if's" but once I sat down with her and we watched "The Business of Being Born" together and I brought her in to meet with my midwife to ease her concern she felt more comfortable. - April 30, 2010 at 2:39 PM
- Sophie said...
My husband and I eloped because his mother was being too bossy with us over the wedding planning (but without giving a dime). And I now realize that we ran away from that issue, but that issue only. She is acting the same about my housekeeping, the fact that we rent an appartment in the city in a poor (but slowly gentrifying) neighborhood, and also the way I plan on raising my children. For example, she urged us to move because we live on a 3rd floor and I won't be able to carry a stroller... I don't even plan to have one in the first place: for millenia, women have been working long days in the fields carrying babies on their back, and still do in some parts of the world, so I think I'll be able to carry mine up 2 flights of stairs thank you very much (and, like you, I'm not pregnant, just planning the "if")
- May 2, 2010 at 12:18 AM
- A-L, from An Honorable Estate said...
I'm the baby of the family and got to see my siblings marry and how the wedding planning influenced my parents (who are now divorced). My father is one who has to be planned around and diplomatically dealt with, so I've figured out the things he is likely to care about and run our ideas by him, but also do the prep work ahead of time so that he's likely to make few, if any changes. And that's worked so far, and I think he's also learned to be more flexible because of the difficult relationships he's had with the older siblings.
As far as my mom (and grandmother, who's involved in the planning) they're really quite supportive about most of my ideas. The only one they hadn't been as big of a fan of was a short (knee-length) wedding dress. Gram ended up supporting the idea, and mom said she would support me no matter what I did, but I knew it was pretty important to her and I ended up with a long dress.
So basically, the planning has been going pretty easily so far (and the future m-i-l has been very hands off too). I guess, at the moment at least, I'm one of the lucky ones! - May 2, 2010 at 12:25 PM

subset: commoncrawl


text:
The StyleEase Installer takes less than a minute to install StyleEase on your computer. Just double-click the installer, and click through a couple screens to complete the process.
We encourage you to read the ReadMe file that displays when the installer finishes.
You need to agree to the StyleEase license agreement, click the Next button once or twice, and click the Finish button at the end of the installation process, which takes only a few minutes.
To create a new StyleEase document in Word:
Make sure StyleEase macros are enabled, so that you can use our features.


text:
The Library
Regulation of corticotropin-releasing hormone receptor type 1 alpha signaling: Structural determinants for G protein-coupled receptor kinase-mediated phosphorylation and agonist-mediated desensitization
UNSPECIFIED. (2005) Regulation of corticotropin-releasing hormone receptor type 1 alpha signaling: Structural determinants for G protein-coupled receptor kinase-mediated phosphorylation and agonist-mediated desensitization. MOLECULAR ENDOCRINOLOGY, 19 (2). pp. 474-490. ISSN 0888-8809
Full text not available from this repository.
Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1210/me.2004-0275
Attenuation of CRH receptor type 1 (CRH-R1) signaling activity might involve desensitization and uncoupling of CRH-R1 from intracellular effectors. We investigated the desensitization of native CRH-R in human myometrial cells from pregnant women and recombinant CRH-R1alpha stably overexpressed in human embryonic kidney (HEK) 293 cells. In both cell types, CRH-R1-mediated adenylyl cyclase activation was susceptible to homologous desensitization induced by pretreatment with high concentrations of CRH. Time course studies showed half-maximal desensitization occurring after approximately 40 min of pretreatment and full recovery of CRH-R1alpha functional response within 2 h of removal of CRH pretreatment. In HEK 293 cells, desensitization of CRH-R1alpha was associated with receptor phosphorylation and subsequent endocytosis. To analyze the mechanism leading to CRH-R1alpha desensitization, we overexpressed a truncated beta-arrestin (319-418) and performed coimmunoprecipitation and G protein-coupled receptor kinase (GRK) translocation studies. We found that GRK3 and GRK6 are the main isoforms that interact with CRH-R1alpha, and that recruitment of GRK3 requires Gbetagamma-subunits as well as beta-arrestin. Site-directed mutagenesis of Ser and Thr residues in the CRH-R1alpha C terminus, identified Thr(399) as important for GRK-induced receptor phosphorylation and desensitization.
We conclude that homologous desensitization of CRH-R1alpha involves the coordinated action of multiple GRK isoforms, Gbeta gamma dimers and beta-arrestin. Based on our identification of key amino acid(s) for GRK-dependent phosphorylation, we demonstrate the importance of the CRH-R1alpha carboxyl tail for regulation of receptor activity.
Item Type: | Journal Article |
Subjects: | R Medicine > RC Internal medicine |
Journal or Publication Title: | MOLECULAR ENDOCRINOLOGY |
Publisher: | ENDOCRINE SOC |
Official Date: | February 2005 |
Volume: | 19 |
Number: | 2 |
Number of Pages: | 17 |
Page Range: | pp. 474-490 |
Identification Number: | 10.1210/me.2004-0275 |
Publication Status: | Published |
URI: | http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/id/eprint/7432 |
Data sourced from Thomson Reuters' Web of Knowledge
Request changes or add full text files to a record
Actions (login required)
View Item |


text:
Welcome to the SideQuest, your semi-weekly podcast devoted to gaming, culture, and gaming culture, with the often tangent.
Episode 406. Diablo 3 Pre-Party
In this episode: Activision makes money! Awesomenauts and Walking Dead are awesome! Bioshock Infinite is delayed… but why? Torchlight II sucks in our time! Diablo 3 is next week. DIABLO III IS NEXT WEEK!
Hosts: Dali Dimovski, Eric Smith, Mike Bachmann, John Parie, Steven Strom
Intro: Gogol Bordello – Rebellious Love
Outro: Cake – Meanwhile, Rick James…
Download the episode directly here
Subscribe and rate us via iTunes or, click here for the direct feed: http://sidequesting.podbean.com/feed
The SideQuest Episode 406: Diablo 3 pre-party [ 1:39:49 | 0.01 MB ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download